Pages

Saturday, 20 October 2018

Whether party can challenge jurisdiction of court at appellate stage or revisional stage?

Now, reverting back to facts of this case it isapparent from the judgment dated 22.10.2016 ofAdditional District Judge, that no objection to thecompetence of Additional District Judge to decide thecase was taken by any of the parties. No objectionhaving been taken to the pecuniary jurisdiction of theAdditional District Judge, Section 21 of the CivilProcedure Code comes into play. Subsection(2) ofSection 21 provides that no objection as to thecompetence of the Court with reference to the pecuniarylimits of the jurisdiction shall be allowed by anyAppellate or Revisional Court unless conditionsmentioned therein are fulfilled. No objection havingbeen raised by respondent tenant regarding competence ofthe Court.Subsection(2) precludes the revisionist toraise any objection regarding competence of the courtand further revisional court ought not to have allowedsuch objection regarding competence of Court ofAdditional District Judge to decide the suit. Therespondent tenant did not raise any objection regardingcompetence of the Court and took a chance to obtainjudgments in his favour on merits, he cannot be allowedto turnroundand contend that the court of AdditionalDistrict Judge had no jurisdiction to try the SmallCause Suit and the judgment is without jurisdiction andnullity. Section 21 has been enacted to thwart any suchobjection by unsuccessful party who did not raise anyobjection regarding competence of court and allowed thematter to be heard on merits. Further, in deciding thesmall cause suit by Additional District Judge, the

tenant has not proved that there has been a consequentfailure of justice.REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NOS.90519052OF 2018(arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 42754276of 2017)OM PRAKASH AGARWAL Vs VISHAN DAYAL RAJPOOT & ANRDated:October 12,2018.ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.These appeals have been filed by theappellant(landlord), questioning the judgment ofAllahabad High Court in Small Causes Court Revisionfiled by the respondents(tenant) challenging the decreeof eviction passed by Additional District Judge,Firozabad. The issue which has arisen in these appealspertains to the jurisdiction of Court of AdditionalDistrict Judge in deciding Small Causes Suit on22.10.2016.22. The facts necessary to be noticed for deciding theseappeals are:Theappellant, the landlord of premises in questionfiled Judge Small Causes Suit No. 1 of 2008 in theCourt of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Small CauseCourt, Firozabad praying for decree of eviction,rent and damages. By order dated 05.04.2010 passedby District Judge, the suit was transferred to theCourt of District Judge, Firozabad and wasregistered as S.C.C. Suit No. 1 of 2010. Thepecuniary jurisdiction of a Judge, Small CauseCourt, which at the time of filing of the suit wasRs.25,000/wasraised from Rs.25,000/toRs. 1lakh w.e.f. 07.12.2005 vide Uttar Pradesh CivilLaws (Amendment) Act, 2015. The AdditionalDistrict Judge to whom the suit was transferredearlier on the ground that pecuniary jurisdictionof the suit is more than Rs.25,000/i.e.Rs.27,775/,proceeded to decide the suit vide itsjudgment and order dated 22.10.2016 and the suitfor eviction, rent and compensation was decreed.3Aggrieved against the judgment of Addl. DistrictJudge, revision under Section 25 of the ProvincialSmall Cause Courts Act, 1887 was filed by thetenant (respondents to this appeal). One of thegrounds taken in the revision was that afterenactment of Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment)Act, 2015, the Court of Additional District Judgeceased to have any jurisdiction to try the suitbetween lessor and lessee of a value upto Rs. 1lakh. The assumption subsequent thereto of thejurisdiction by the Additional District Judge iswithout jurisdiction.Some other grounds were also taken forchallenging the judgment dated 22.10.2016. The HighCourt vide its impugned judgment dated 07.12.2016allowed the Small Cause Court revision taking aview that order passed by Additional District Judgewas without jurisdiction in view of Uttar PradeshCivil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 07.12.2015,after which date, such case of valuation ofRs.27,775/couldhave been decided by Civil Judge4(Senior Division) working as Judge Small CausesCourt. The High Court relied on the earlierjudgment of High Court in SCC Revision No. 278 of2016 – Shobhit Nigam Vs. Smt. Batulan and anotherdecided on 29.08.2016. The High Court remanded backthe Revision for a fresh decision by Small CausesCourt presided over by a Civil Judge (SeniorDivision). The landlord aggrieved by said judgmenthas come up in this appeal.3. Shri A.K. Singla, learned senior counsel appearingfor the appellant contended that High Court committed anerror in allowing the Revision. It is submitted thatUttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 w.e.f.07.12.2015 has only enhanced the jurisdiction forinstitution of small causes suit, which amendment shallhave no effect on the pending cases. In the UttarPradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, there was nostipulation that pending cases of having valuation ofmore than Rs.25,000/beforethe Court of District Judgeshould be transferred. He submits that no objection tothe pecuniary jurisdiction of Additional District Judge5was taken by the respondents before the AdditionalDistrict Judge, hence by virtue of Section 21 of theCivil Procedure Code, they were estopped from taking anysuch objection in the Revision.4. Shri S.U. Khan, learned counsel appearing for therespondents refuting the submission of the appellantcontends that the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment)Act, 2015 w.e.f. 07.12.2015, uses the word “cognizance”.If a suit is cognizable by a Court then the Court hasgot the jurisdiction not only to receive the plaint butalso to decide the suit. After the amendment by UttarPradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, the Court ofAdditional District Judge was not only debarred fromreceiving plaints but was also not competent to decideSmall Causes Suit, which has valuation upto Rs. 1 lakh.To the view taken by the High Court in Shobhit Nigam’scase (supra), there is a contrary view taken by the HighCourt in Pankaj Hotel Vs. Bal Mukund, (2018) 1 ALJ 2017.The principles and objections of pecuniary jurisdictionas contemplated in Section 21(2) is not attracted in thepresent case. In Shobhit Nigam’s case (supra) High6Court had issued a general direction for transferring ofRegular Judge Small Causes Court Suits upto valuation ofRs. 1 lakh to the Civil Judge (Senior Division). Hesubmits that special leave petition deserves to bedismissed.5. From the above submissions of learned counsel forthe parties and the pleadings on record, following arethe issues, which arise for consideration in thisappeal:(i) Whether the Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws(Amendment) Act, 2015 is only prospective innature and confined only to the freshinstitution of suits in the Court of CivilJudge (Senior Division) w.e.f. 07.12.2015 uptovaluation of Rs. 1 lakh and shall not affectthe cognizance/hearing of pending suits uptothe valuation of Rs. 1 lakh pending in theCourt of District Judge/Additional DistrictJudge?(ii) Whether the Court of District Judge/AdditionalDistrict Judge, which Court was vested with thejurisdiction of Small Causes suit of the7valuation of more than Rs.25,000/w.e.f.08.02.1991 shall cease to have or could havestill exercised the pecuniary jurisdiction onthe Small Causes Suits of Valuation upto Rs. 1lakh?(iii) Whether respondents (tenants) having not raisedany objection regarding jurisdiction of theCourt of Additional District Judge where thesuit was pending after amendments made by UttarPradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015, therespondent (tenant) is precluded to questionthe competence of the Court of AdditionalDistrict Judge to decide the suit vide hisjudgment dated 22.10.2016 in view of Section 21of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in revisionfiled under Section 25 of the Provincial SmallCauses Court Act?6. Before we proceed to consider the issues, which hasarisen for consideration in this appeal, it is useful torefer the relevant statutory provisions relevant for thesubject.87. Two enactments namely (i) The Bengal, Agra, AssamCivil Courts Act, 1887 and (ii) The Provincial SmallCauses Courts Act, 1887, were passed with regard toconstitution, jurisdiction of Civil Courts in the thenNorthWesternProvinces both being enforced w.e.f.01.07.1887. The Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil CourtsAct, 1887 was enacted to consolidate and amend the lawrelating to Civil Courts in Bengal, the NorthWesternProvinces and Assam. Section 3 of the Act provides forConstitution of Civil Courts. Section 4 relates tonumber of District Judges, Subordinate Judges andMunsifs. Section 17 dealt with continuance ofproceeding of Courts ceasing to have jurisdiction.Section 18 dealt with extent of original jurisdiction ofDistrict or Subordinate Judge (for the State of UttarPradesh, the word “Subordinate” was substituted with theword “Civil”). Section 19 dealt with extent ofjurisdiction of Munsif. Section 19 as applicable in theState of Uttar Pradesh was substituted by U.P. Act No.17 of 1991 was to the following effect:“19(1) Save as aforesaid, and subject to theprovisions of subsection(2), the jurisdiction9of a Munsif extends to all like suits of whichthe value does not exceed ten thousand rupees.(2) The High Court may direct by notificationin the official Gazette, with respect to anymunsif named therein, that his jurisdictionshall exceed to all like suits of such valuenot exceeding twenty five thousand rupees asmay be specified in the notification.”8. Section 25 deals with power to invest SubordinateJudges and Munsifs with Small Cause Court Jurisdiction.Section 25 of the Act as applicable in the State ofUttar Pradesh is as follows: “[25.[1] The High Court may by notificationin the official Gazette, confer within suchlocal limits as it thinks fit, upon any CivilJudge or Munsif, the jurisdiction of a Judgeof a Court of Small Causes under theProvincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 forthe trial of suits cognizable by such Courtsup to such value not exceeding five thousandrupees as it thinks fit, and may withdraw anyjurisdiction so conferred:Provided that in relation to suitsof the nature referred to in theproviso to subsection(2) ofSection 15 of the said Act, thereference in this subsectiontofive thousand rupees shall beconstrued as reference to twentyfivethousand rupees.][(2) The High Court may, by notification inthe Official Gazette, confer upon anyDistrict Judge or Additional District Judge10the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court ofSmall Causes under the Provincial Small CauseCourts Act, 1887, for the trial of allsuits(irrespective of their value), by thelessor for the eviction of a lessee from abuilding after the determination of hislease, or for the recovery from him of rentin respect of the period of occupationthereof during the continuance of the leaseor of compensation for the use and occupationthereof during the continuance of the leaseor of compensation for the use and occupationthereof after such determination of lease,and may withdraw any jurisdiction soconferred.Explanation – For the purposes of this subsection,the expression ‘building’ has thesame meaning as in Article (4) in the SecondSchedule of the said Act.][(3)]x x x ][(4) Where the jurisdiction of a Judge of aCourt of Small Causes is conferred upon anyDistrict Judge of Additional District Judgeby notification under section, then,notwithstanding anything contained in section15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,1887, all suits referred to in subsection(2) shall be cognizable by Court of SmallCauses.]”9. The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 wasenacted to consolidate and amend the law relating tocourts of small causes established beyond the Presidencytown. AS the name suggests, the Provincial Small Cause11Courts Act 1887 was enacted to deal with “Small Causes”.The Object of the Act was to create a separate court fordealing with small causes. The object obviously was thatsmall causes may be dealt with expeditiously. A summaryprocedure was also envisaged for dealing with smallcauses. The Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882 wasalready in place in Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. Inthis country, before the Provincial Small Cause CourtsAct 1887 was enacted, there were different legislationsapplicable in different areas with the same object,i.e., to deal with cases of small causes effectively andsummarily. The Statement of Objects and Reasons ofProvincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887 was to thefollowing effect:“The suits cognizable in Courts of SmallCauses are subject to certain provisos,described in Section 6, Act XI of 1865, as“claims for money due on bond or othercontract, or for rent, or for personalproperty, or for the value of such property,or for damages, when the debt, damage ordemand does not exceed in amount or value thesum of five hundred rupees whether on balanceof account or otherwise" and Sec. 586 of theCode of Civil Procedure provides that "nosecond appeal shall lie in any suit of thenature cognizable in Courts of Small Causes,when the amount or value of the subjectmatter12of the original suit does not exceed fivehundred rupees". Since Section 6 of the Act of1865 was enacted, a vast quantity of caselawhas grown up around it, and, as the rulings ofthe Courts have not been uniform, doubtsconstantly arise on the question whether asuit is or is not a suit of the naturecognizable by a Court of Small Causes, and,consequently, whether or not, where the suitis of value not exceeding five hundred rupeesand the original decree made in it was notfinal but was open to appeal, an appeal willalso lie from the appellate decree in thesuit. It appears to the Government of Indiathat the conflicting constructions placed onSection 6, of which some are due to theprogress of legislation during the last twentyyears (ILR 3 All 66), render a more accuratedefinition necessary of the suits of whichCourts of Small Causes may take cognizance,and that legislation to this end should followSections 18 and 19 of the Presidency SmallCause Courts Act, 1882, in declaring thejurisdiction of those Courts to extend to allsuits of a civil nature, subject to specifiedexceptions. This Bill has accordingly beenprepared, its primary object being to removethe doubts now felt as to the effect ofSection 6, Act XI of 1865; and, as severalsections and parts of sections of that Acthave, from time to time, been repealed andother sections are obsolete as regards bothexpression and utility, it has been considereddesirable to repeal the Act and reenactthesubstance of the extant portions of it………." —Gazette of India, 1886, Part V, page 8.”10. Black's Law Dictionary has referred to “SmallClaims Court”, which explained it in following manner:13"A court that informally and expeditiouslyadjudicates claims that seek damages below aspecified monetary amount, usu. claims tocollect small accounts or debts.Alsotermed smalldebtscourt; conciliationcourt.”11. The object as is delineated from Statements ofObjects of enactment was to provide for speedy machineryfor small claims. Although, Code of Civil Procedure isapplicable by virtue of Section 17 of Small CausesCourts Act, but the Code of Civil Procedure itself inOrder L provides a simplified procedure excludingvarious rules and orders of the C.P.C. for small causescases. Order L of the C.P.C. is as follows:“1. Provincial Small Cause Courts Theprovisions hereinafter specified shall notextend to Courts constituted under theProvincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (9 of1887)[or under the Berar Small Cause CourtsLaw, 1905] or to Courts exercising thejurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes[under the said Act or Law],[or to Courts in[any part of India to which the said Act doesnot extend] exercising a correspondingjurisdiction] that is to say(a) so much of this Schedule as relates to(i) suits excepted from the cognizanceof a Court of Small Causes or theexecution of decrees in such suits;(ii) the execution of decrees againstimmovable property or the interest14of a partner in partnershipproperty;(iii) the settlement of issues; and(b) the following rules and orders:OrderII, rule 1 (frame of suit);Order X, rule 3 (record of examinationof parties);Order XV, except so much of rule 4 asprovides for the pronouncement at onceof judgement;Order XVIII, rules 5 to 12 (evidence);Orders XLI to XLV (appeals);Order XLVII, rules 2, 3, 5, 6, 7(review);Order LI.”12. Section 5 provided for establishment of smallcauses courts by the State Government. Chapter III ofthe Act deals with “Jurisdiction of Courts of SmallCauses”. Section 15 of the Act provides: 15.Cognizance of suits by Courts of SmallCauses(1) A Court of Small Causes shall nottake cognizance of the suits specified inthe Second Schedule as suits expected fromthe cognizance of a Court of Small Causes.(2) Subject to the exceptions specified inthat Schedule and to the provisions of anyenactment for the time being in force, allsuits of a civil nature of which the valuedoes not exceed five hundred rupees shall becognizable by a Court of Small Causes.15(3) Subject as aforesaid, the [StateGovernment] may, by order in writing, directthat all suits of a civil nature of whichthe value does not exceed one thousandrupees shall be cognizable by a Court ofSmall Causes mentioned in the order."13. The Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972(U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972) was enacted by Uttar PradeshLegislature with the Presidential assent. The Statementof Objects and Reasons of U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972, whichare relevant for understanding the Scheme and purpose ofthe amendment are to the following effect:“Prefatory Note—Statement of Objects andReasons.(1) The Provincial Small CauseCourts Act, 1887, provides for a summaryprocedure in the trial of suits. Moreover, thedecisions of such courts are not appealable,and only one revision is provided. Howeversuch courts cannot take cognizance of suitsfor possession of immovable property. By arecent amendment contained in Section 20(6) ofthe U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation ofLetting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U. P.Act XIII of 1972), eviction suits against thetenant after the expiration of his tenancyhave been taken out from the purview of thisexception and have been made cognizable by thesmall cause courts. This has been done becausein such suits the issues are usually simple.In cases where the question of title comes tobe in issue, a small cause court has power toreturn the plaint for presentation to aregular court. It is now proposed to deletethe aforesaid amendment from U. P. Act XIII OF161972, and instead, to incorporate a wideramendment directly in the Provincial SmallCauses Court Act, 1887, so that all buildings,and not merely those buildings which aregoverned by U. P. Act XIII of 1972, may becovered thereby. It is further proposed thatin respect of such suits the ordinary smallcause courts may be conferred jurisdiction todecide cases of a value up to Rs. 5,000(instead of only Rs. 2,000 in some districtsand Rs.1,000 in most districts, as at present)and that cases of a higher value may bedecided by District Judges sitting as Judgesof Small Causes, and revisions against suchdecisions of District Judge shall lie to theHigh Court, while revision against decisionsof other Courts of Small Causes may continueto lie to the District Judge.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx”14. As per Section 15(1), A Court of Small Causes wasnot competent to take cognizance of the suits specifiedin the Second Schedule. Clause (4) of the SecondSchedule of the Act was to the following effect:“(4) a suit for the possession of immoveableproperty or for the recovery of an interest insuch property;”15. By Act No. 37 of 1972 amendments were made inSection 15, Section 25 and Second Schedule of the Act.17Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972provides as follows:-“2. Amendment of Section 15 of Act IX of1887.-- In Section 15 of the Provincial SmallCause Courts Act, 1887, as amended in itsapplication to Uttar Pradesh, hereinafterreferred to as the principal Act, in subsection(3), the following proviso shall beinserted, namely:"Provided that in relation to suitsby the lessor for the eviction of alessee from a building after thedetermination of his lease, or forrecovery from him of rent in respectof the period of occupation thereofduring the continuance of the lease,or of compensation for the use andoccupation thereof after suchdetermination of lease, thereference in this sub-section to twothousand rupees shall be construedas a reference to five thousandrupees.Explanation.--For the purposes ofthis sub-section, the expression'building' has the same meaning asin Article (4) in the SecondSchedule."3. Amendment of Section 25 of Act IX of1887.-- In Section 25 of the principal Act thefollowing proviso thereto shall be inserted,namely :"Provided that in relation to anycase decided by a District Judge orAdditional District Judge exercisingthe jurisdiction of Judge of SmallCauses, the power of revision under18this section shall vest in the HighCourt."4. Amendment of the Second Schedule to Act IXof 1887.-- In the Second Schedule to theprincipal Act, for Article (4) the followingArticle shall be substituted, namely :"(4) a suit for the possession ofimmovable property or for therecovery of an interest in suchproperty, but not including a suitby a lessor for the eviction of alessee from a building after thedetermination of his lease, and forthe recovery from him ofcompensation for the use andoccupation of that building aftersuch determination of lease.Explanation.--For the purposes ofthis Article, the expression'buildings, means a residential ornon-residential roofed structure,and includes any land (including anygarden), garages and out-houses,appurtenant to such building, andalso includes any fittings andfixtures affixed to the building forthe more beneficial enjoymentthereof."16. One more amendment, which was affected by U.P. ActNo. 37 of 1972 was amendment in Section 25 of Bengal,Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, which was made bySection 5 of the Act, which is to the following effect:“5. Amendment of Section 25 of Act XII of1887.Section25 of the Bengal, Agra andAssam Civil Courts Act, 1887, as amended in19its application to Uttar Pradesh shall be renumberedas subsection(1) thereof, and(i) in subsection(1), as so renumbered,for the existing proviso, thefollowing proviso shall be substituted,namely :"Provided that in relation to suitsof the nature referred to in theproviso to subsection(3) ofSection 15 of the said Act thereferences in this subsectiontoone thousand rupees and five hundredrupees shall be construedrespectively as references to fivethousand rupees and one thousandrupees."(ii) after subsection(1) as so renumbered,the following subsectionshallbe inserted, namely :"(2) The State Government may bynotification in the officialGazette, confer upon any DistrictJudge or Additional District Judgethe jurisdiction of a Judge of aCourt of Small Causes under theProvincial Small Cause Courts Act,1887, for the trial of all suits(irrespective of their value), bythe lessor for the eviction of alessee from a building after thedetermination of his lease, or forthe recovery from him of rent inrespect of the period of occupationthereof during the continuance ofthe lease or of compensation for theuse and occupation thereof aftersuch determination of lease, and may20withdraw any jurisdiction soconferred.ExplanationForthe purposes ofthis subsection,the expression'building' has same meaning as inArticle (4) in the Second Scheduleto the said Act.(3) The State Government may bynotification in the official Gazettedelegate to the High Court its powersunder this section."17. As noted above, the jurisdiction of Small CausesCourt in so far as State of Uttar Pradesh was concernedwas to be vested in both in the Court of Munsifs [nowknown as Civil Judge (Junior Division)] and Civil Judge[now designated as Civil Judge (Senior Division)]. Asnoted above, Court of Small Causes were empowered totake cognizance of small causes having particularpecuniary jurisdiction only. Section 25 of the Bengal,Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 empowered theState Government by notification to confer upon anySubordinate Judges and Munsifs with jurisdiction ofSmall Cause Court for the trial of suits and cognizanceof such suits upto the value as fixed in the Act.21Section 25 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil CourtsAct, 1887 as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradeshhas been amended as has been noticed above, where theHigh Court exercising power under Section 25(2) of theBengal, Agra & Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 can conferupon any District Judge or Additional District Judge thejurisdiction of a Judge of Small Causes Court for thetrial of all suits(irrespective of their value), by thelessor for the eviction of a lessee of a building afterthe determination of his lease.18. In Section 15 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act,for subsection(2) and (3), following was substitutedby U.P. Act 17 of 1991 w.e.f. 15.01.1991:“(2) Subject to the exceptions specified inthat Schedule and to the provisions of anyenactment for the time being in force, allsuits of a civil nature of which the valuedoes not exceed five thousand rupees shall becognizable by a Court of Small Causes;Provided that in relation to suits by thelessor for the eviction of a lessee from abuilding after the determination of his leaseor for recovery from him of rent in respectof the period of occupation thereof duringthe continuance of the lease, or ofcompensation for use and occupation thereof22after the determination of the lease, thereference in this subsectionto fivethousand rupees shall be construed as areference to twentyfivethousand rupees.ExplanationForthe purposes of this subsection,the expression ‘building’ has thesame meaning as in Art.(4) in the SecondSchedule.”19. Section 17 of the Act makes the Code of CivilProcedure applicable to the Court of Small Causes in allsuits cognizable by it and all proceedings arising outof all such suits. By Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws(Amendment) Act, 2015 w.e.f. 07.12.2015, Section 19,Section 21 of the Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil CourtsAct, 1887 and Section 15 of Provincial Small CauseCourts Act, 1887, were amended. The act contains onlyfour sections which is to the following effect: “AN ACT further to amend the Bengal, Agra andAssam Civil Courts Act, 1887 and theProvincial Small Cause Courts Act 1887intheir application to Uttar Pradesh.IT IS HEREBY enacted in the Sixtysixthyearof Republic of India as follows:CHAPTER– IPRELIMINARY1.(1) This Act may be called the UttarPradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015,23(2) It shall extend to whole of UttarPradesh.CHAPTER – IIAmendment of Bengal, Agra and Assam, CivilCourts Act1887.2. Bengal, Agra and Assam, Civil Courts Act1887hereinafter in this chapter referred toas the principal Act,(a) in subsection(1) for the words “tenthousand rupees” the words “one lakh rupees”shall be substituted;(b) in subsection(2) for the words “twentyfive thousand rupees” the words “five lakhrupees” shall be substituted.3. In section 21 of the principal Act, insubsection(1), in clause (b)(a) for the words “one lakh rupees” the words“five lakh rupees” shall be substituted; and(b) for the words “five lakh rupees” thewords “twenty five lakh rupees” shall besubstituted.CHAPTER IIIAmendment of the Provincial Small CauseCourts Act, 18874. In Section 15 of the Provincial SmallCause Courts Act, 1887,(a) in subsection(2) for the words “fivethousand rupees” the words “twenty fivethousand rupees” shall be substituted;24(b) in the proviso to subsection(2) for thewords “twenty five thousand rupees” the words“one lakh rupees” shall be substituted.”20. By the above amendment in the Provincial SmallCause Courts Act, 1887 the limit of pecuniaryjurisdiction of small causes court was increased fromRs.25,000/toRs.1 Lakh. The Judge, Small Causes Courtin the State of U.P. is seniormostCivil Judge, workingin the district. Although the Court of Small Causes wasempowered to take cognizance of a suit upto thevaluation of Rs.1 lakh w.e.f. 07.12.2015, the suit inquestion namely Small Causes Suit No.1 of 2010 which waspending in the Court of Additional District Judge,Firozabad continued to proceed in the court ofAdditional District Judge. None of the parties raisedany objection with regard to hearing of suit byAdditional District Judge, consequently, the AdditionalDistrict Judge heard the parties and by judgment dated22.10.2016 decreed the suit for eviction and due rent &compensation. The tenant aggrieved by the judgment ofAdditional District Judge filed a revision under Section2525 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, beforethe High Court.21. One of the grounds taken before the High Court wasthat in view of the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act,2015, the Court of Additional District Judge ceased tohave jurisdiction to try suit between lessor and lesseeof value upto Rs.1 Lac w.e.f. 07.12.2015, assumption ofjurisdiction subsequent thereto, is withoutjurisdiction.22. The High Court accepted the above submissionsraised by learned Counsel for the respondent visavisand decreed the suit and allowed the revision byremanding the suit for fresh decision before SmallCauses Court presided by Civil Judge, Senior Division.Following are the reasons given by the High Court forallowing the revision:“...The controversy as to the jurisdiction ofthe Judge Small Causes Court has been decidedby this Court, vide judgment dated 29.08.2016passed in SCC Revision No.278 of 2016,Shobhit Nigam Vs. Smt. Batulan and another.26It has been held that consequent to theamendment, in Section 15 of the ProvincialSmall Causes Court Act, an SCC Suit having avaluation between Rs.25,000/toRs.1 lacshall lie before the Small Cause Courtpresided over by a Civil Judge(SeniorDivision). The suits having a valuation ofmore than Rs.1 Lac would lie before theAdditional District Judge/District Judgeconstituting a Small Causes Court.Shri Satendra KumarI,who has filed theircounter affidavit in Court today, has notbeen able to effectively rebut thesubmissions made by the counsel for therevisionist.Under the circumstances, this Court findsthat the order impugned is withoutjurisdiction and is hereby set aside. The SCCrevision is allowed...”23. Now we proceed to consider the issues which havearisen in the present appeals:ISSUENO.1 & 224. Prior to Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act,2015, as per Section 15(2) of Provincial Small CauseCourt, 1887 as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradeshin relation to suits by lessor for eviction of lessee27from building after determination of his lease afterrecovering from him of rent, the Court of Small Causeswould have taken cognizance of suits value of which doesnot exceed Rs.25,000/.The suit was filed with thevaluation of Rs.21,175/.The Suit was initially filedin the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, SmallCause Court, Firozabad. Plaintiff filed a applicationfor amendment which was allowed permitting the valuationto be enhanced to Rs.27,775/.The suit thereafter wastransferred to the Court of District Judge and renumberedas S.C.C.Suit No.1 of 2010.25. The main issue to be answered is as to whetherafter 07.12.2015, the court of Additional District Judgewhere the suit in question was pending could still havepecuniary jurisdiction to decide the suit or suit oughtto have been transferred back to the court of CivilJudge, Senior Division.2826. The High Court while in allowing the revision hasrelied on an earlier judgment of the High Court inShobhit Nigam vs. Smt.Batulan and another (supra).27. In above case also the valuation of small causessuit was Rs.44,000/andthe suit was pending in thecourt of Additional District Judge who after U.P. CivilLaws (Amendment) Act, 2015 proceeded to decide the suitwide its judgment dated 24.05.2016. S.C.C. Revisionfiled in the High Court, the same very argument waspressed that the order of Additional District Judge iswithout jurisdiction. The High Court noticed theprovisions of Section 15 of the Provincial Small CausesCourts Act, the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015and had also taken note of the objects and reason ofU.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015. The High Courtheld that the phrase “institution” as occurring in theobjects and reasons does not confine to institution ofcivil suits only and after the amendment w.e.f.07.12.2015, rather, District Judge and AdditionalDistrict Judge could have no jurisdiction to decide29suits having valuation of less than Rs.1 lac and theirjurisdiction shall be only with regard to those caseswhich has valuation of over Rs.1 lac. The High Court inShobhit Nigam’s Case held that assumption ofjurisdiction of Additional District Judge deciding thesuit having valuation of Rs.44,000/isillegal and setaside the judgment. In Shobhit Nigam’s case, the HighCourt also directed that copy of judgment be circulatedto all District Judges of U.P. for necessary complianceto ensure that all pending suits of rent and evictionfrom a building after determination of lease fallingunder proviso to Section 15(2) of the Act upto thevaluation of Rs.1,00,000/betransferred to the SmallCauses Court presided over by the senior most CivilJudge, Senior Division of the district irrespective ofthe date of their institution.28. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondentsubmitted that judgment of Shobhit Nigam's case does notlay down the correct law. He has relied on anotherjudgment of learned Single Judge decided on 30.08.201730in S.C.C. Revision No.171 and 172 of 2017, Pankaj Hoteland others vs. Bal Mukund and others. Learned SingleJudge who decided the case of Pankaj Hotel and otherstook the contrary view and held that U.P. Civil Laws(Amendment) Act, 2015 is only prospective in nature andwas applicable with regard to institutions of freshsuits only. In the suits pending, the Court of DistrictJudge/Additional District Judge continued to havepecuniary jurisdiction to decide Small Causes Suits uptothe valuation of Rs.1 lac even after U.P. Civil Laws(Amendment) Act, 2015 enforced w.e.f. 07.12.2015.Learned Single Judge referred to an earlier judgment inS.C.C. Revision defective No. 76 of 2017, Sanjay Sharmaalias Pintu vs. Anil Dua alias Titu, decided on13.07.2017 where learned Singe Judge had taken acontrary view to the judgment of learned Single Judge inShobhit Nigam’s Case (Supra).29. One of the issues, which has to be answered is asto whether the Court of Additional District Judge, whichhas been invested with the jurisdiction of Small Causes31Court after amendment by Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws(Amendment) Act, 2015 could still have proceeded todecide the Small Causes Suit w.e.f. 07.12.2015, whichsuits became cognizable by a Judge Small Causes Court,i.e., a Court presided by a Civil Judge. For answeringthe above issue, we need to find out the Scheme of SmallCause Courts Act.30. As noticed above, Small Cause Courts were envisagedto be Courts, which may expeditiously dispose of smallcauses. Small causes were contemplated to be disposedof by the Courts by following the procedure lesscumbersome as compared to those applicable in theregular civil courts. By U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972, thecases by a lessor for eviction of lessee and forrecovery of rent in respect of the period of occupationwas also taken in fold of small causes, which could betaken cognizance by Small Causes Court after amendmentof Clause (4) of Second Schedule of the Provincial SmallCause Courts Act, 1887. The amendment made in Section25 of the Bengal, Agra & Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 by32U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972 empowered the State Governmentto confer upon any District Judge or Additional DistrictJudge power of Judge of Small Causes Court “for thetrial of suits irrespective of their value by the lessorfor the eviction of lessee…..” The above amendment wasnecessitated since the Court of Small Causes presided byCivil Judge could have entertained small causes suitshaving value of only five thousand rupees, as peramendment by U.P. Act No. 37 of 1972 cases by lessor forthe eviction of lessee having valuation of more thanfive thousand rupees could not have been takencognizance by Civil Judges, who were designated asJudges of Small Causes Court to take up such cases.When Legislature treated all suits by the lessor for theeviction of lessee from a building as a “Small CauseSuit”, a forum had to be created for deciding such casesas small cause cases. The expression “irrespective oftheir value” used in Section 25 as amended was withclear intention that irrespective of the value, thecases filed by the lessor for the eviction of lesseeshould be treated as small causes cases and should be33dealt as a small cause case. By subsequent amendment,the Small Causes Courts presided by Civil Judge becomeempowered to decide cases of small cause upto twentyfivethousand rupees and cases above twentyfivethousand rupees by lessor against lessee were to betaken cognizance by Court of Additional District Judges.The legislative Scheme contains a clear dichotomybetween cases, which could have been taken cognizance bysmall causes courts presided by Civil Judge and those ofsmall cause cases presided by District Judge orAdditional District Judge. The dividing line was onlyvaluation of small cause cases relating to suits bylessor against the lessee. Necessity to empower theDistrict Judge/Additional District Judge to decide smallcause cases relating to eviction by lessor againstlessee was with the above intent. The Legislature neverintended that all cases pertaining to suits by lessoragainst the lessee of any valuation could be filed inany Small Causes Court.3431. It is true that District Judge or AdditionalDistrict Judge functioning as Small Causes Courts cantake cognizance of all suits irrespective of theirvalue. But use of the words “irrespective of theirvalue” was in contradiction of the pecuniary value,which was given to Judge of Small Causes Courts presidedby Civil Judge. The fact that District Judge orAdditional District Judge can take cognizance of allsuits irrespective of their value shall not whittle downor dilute the line of separation between two courts intaking cognizance of small cause cases. The mere factthat District Judge or Additional District Judge cantake cognizance of suits of unlimited value will notempower them to take cognizance of cases, which,according to statutory Scheme can be taken only by smallcauses courts presided by Civil Judge. It is relevantto notice that the Allahabad High Court had occasion toconsider the provisions of the Provincial Small CauseCourts Act, 1887 as applicable in the State of UttarPradesh. A reference is made to M.P. Mishra Vs. SangamLal Agarwal, AIR 1975 Allahabad 425. In the above case35before the Allahabad High Court, a small cause suit wasdecided by the Additional District Judge, which hadvaluation of more than five thousand rupees. Argumentswere raised that valuation of small cause case is morethan five thousand rupees, hence Additional DistrictJudge could not have decided the case as small causecase rather it ought to have been decided as a normalcivil suit. In the above context, provision of U.P. ActNo. 37 of 1972 and U.P. Act No. 19 of 1973 by whichSection 25 of Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act,1887 was amended by adding another subsection,i.e.subsection(4), and the notifications issued by the HighCourt in above respect were noticed. Paragraph Nos. 5to 8, which are relevant are as follows:“5. By the U.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act of1973 (President's Act No. 19 of 1973) anothersubsection,namely, Subsection(4) was addedto Section 25. The said Subsection(4) readsas follows :"Where the jurisdiction of a Judgeof a Court of Small Causes isconferred upon any District Judge orAdditional District Judge bynotification under this section,then, notwithstanding anythingcontained in Section 15 of theProvincial Small Cause Courts Act,361887 all suits referred to in Subsection(2) shall be cognizable byCourt of Small Causes."By virtue of Section 1 (3) of the said Act of1973 it shall be deemed that the said Subsection(4) came into force on the 20thSeptember, 1972, i.e. the date on which theU.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act of 1972 cameinto force.6. Certain notifications which have beenissued may also be noticed here. NotificationNo. 4111 (8)/VIIA580/72, dated September 22,1972, published in Uttar Pradesh Gazette,dated 30972,Part I (Page 5252), issued bythe State Government lays down as under :"In exercise of the powers conferredby Subsection(3) of Section 15 ofthe Provincial Small Cause CourtsAct, 1887 (Act IX of 1887) asamended by the U.P. Civil LawsAmendment Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 37of 1972) and in continuation ofGovernment Notification No. 1 (8)69Nyaya(KaII),dated September23, 1969, the Governor is pleased todirect, that subject to theexceptions specified in the SecondSchedule to the first mentioned Act,and to the Provisions of anyenactment for the time being inforce, all suite referred to in theproviso to the said subsectionofwhich the value does not exceed fivethousand rupees, shall, with effectfrom the date of publication of thisnotification, be cognizable by theCourts of Judge. Small Causes,Bareilly, Moradabad, Meerut,Gorakhpur, Aligarh, Kanpur,37Allahabad, Varanasi, Agra, Lucknow,and the Court of additional Judge,Small Causes, Lucknow."7. The State Government issued anothernotification on the same day i.e. Sep. 22,1972 dated September 22, 1972, published inUttar Pradesh Gazette, Part I, dated October7, 1972 (page No. 5973), which lays down asunder :"In exercise of the powers underSubsection(3) of Section 25 of theBengal, Agra and Assam Civil CourtsAct, 1887 (Act XII of 1887) asamended by the Uttar Pradesh CivilLaws (Amendment) Act, 1972, (U.P.Act No. 37 of 1972) and insupersession of all earliernotifications issued in this behalf,the Governor is pleased to delegateto the High Court of Judicature atAllahabad the powers of the StateGovernment under the said section."8. By Notification No. 525 dated 25101972the High Court conferred "upon all theDistrict Judges and Additional DistrictJudges, the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Courtof Small Causes under the Provincial SmallCause Courts Act, 1887 (Act IX of 1887), forthe trial of all suits (irrespective of theirvalue) of the nature referred to in the saidSubsection(2)."32. The High Court also noticed the object and purposeof Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 andHigh Court held that Additional District Judge had38jurisdiction to take cognizance of cases of valuation ofmore than five thousand rupees. In Paragraph Nos. 11and 12, following was stated:“11. The amendments which were effected by theU.P. Civil Laws Amendment Act of 1972 weremotivated by a consideration that the suitsfor eviction filed by the lessors against thelessees of buildings took an unduly long timeto be finally decided and, therefore, it wasthought advisable that such suits should betried as suits of the nature of small causessuits so that they could be disposed ofexpeditiously and there could be no appealagainst the decision of the trial Court. Thischange was sought to be brought about byamending Article 4 of the Second Schedule ofthe Provincial Small Cause Courts Act so thata suit by a lessor for the eviction of alessee from a building after the determinationof his lease and for the recovery from him ofcompensation for the use and occupation of thebuildings after such determination of leasewas no longer excepted from the cognizance ofthe court of small causes. Such suits,therefore, became triable by the Courts ofJudge, Small Causes and by virtue of Section16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Actthey became exclusively triable by suchcourts. Of course, the limitation on accountof the valuation of the suit remained, Thislimitation was contained in Section 15(2) andin Section 15(3). Ordinarily, the jurisdictionof the Small Causes Court stretched up to Rs.1,000 under Section 15(2) of the ProvincialSmall Cause Courts Act. But under Section15(3) the State Government was empowered toraise the pecuniary limit of such jurisdictionto Rs. 5,000 in respect of suits between thelessors and the lessees for eviction of the39latter after the determination of theirtenancy from buildings. This result wasbrought about by the addition of the provisoto Section 15(3) by the U.P. Civil LawsAmendment Act, 1972. As has been stated, theState Government issued a Notification datedSept. 22, 1972, whereby the Court of Judge,Small Causes situated at Bareilly, Moradabad,Meerut, Gorakhpur, Aligarh, Kanpur, Allahabad,Varanasi, Agra, Lucknow and the Court ofAdditional Judge, Small Causes, Lucknow wereempowered to take cognizance of the suitsbetween the lessors and the lessees for thelatter's eviction from buildings whose valuedoes not exceed Rs. 5,000. In view of theaddition of Subsection(2) to Section 25 ofthe Bengal, Agra and Assam Civil Courts Act itbecame possible to confer upon the DistrictJudge or Additional District Judge thejurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of SmallCauses for the trial of suits for eviction oflessees and for recovery of rents and damages(disregarding some minor aspects of thematter). Such a jurisdiction has beenconferred upon the District Judges and theAdditional District Judges by the aforesaidNotification dated 25101972issued by thisCourt.12. In view of the aforesaid amendments, inthe district of Allahabad (from where thisrevision has arisen) the Court of Judge ofSmall Causes had a jurisdiction to takecognizance of the suits between the lessorsand the lessees in respect of the latter'seviction from buildings provided the valuationof such suits does not exceed Rs. 5,000. Ifthe valuation exceeds Rs. 5,000 then the courtof the District Judge and the AdditionalDistrict Judge who have been empowered to takecognizance of such suits can try the same inthe manner in which suits of the Small Cause40Court nature are tried. In Section 25(2), itis clearly stated that the District Judge orthe Additional District Judge will have thejurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of SmallCauses for the trial of the aforesaid varietyof suits irrespective of their value. In myview, if the contention on behalf of theapplicant were to be accepted then it will bedoing violence to the said expression. Anyinterpretation which seeks to put a limitationon the valuation of the Suits cognizable bythe District Judge or the Additional DistrictJudge will be contrary to the clear expressionused in Subsection(2) of Section 25"irrespective of their value". Learned counselfor the applicant placed reliance on thepronouncement of the Supreme Court reported inRaja Soap Factory v. S. P. Shantharaj [AIR(1965) SC 1449. In my view, the saidpronouncement does not support the contentionon behalf of the applicant. Counsel alsosought to support his contention by invitingmy attention to Subsection(4) added toSection 25 by the U.P. Civil Laws AmendmentAct of 1973. The said Subsection(4) has beenreproduced above and in the concluding portionthereof the words used are "......... allsuits referred to in Subsection(2) shall becognizable by court of Small Causes". It isurged that if the legislative intention werethat the District Judge or the AdditionalDistrict Judge on whom the powers of a Judgeof a Court of Small Causes have been conferredshould take cognizance of the aforesaidvariety of suits between the lessor and thelessee then in the concluding portion of Subsection(4) the legislature would not haveused the words "Court of Small Causes" butwould have used the expression "District Judgeor Additional District Judge," counselcontended that there is a distinction betweena Court of Small Causes established under the41Provincial Small Causes Court and officers whoare invested with the powers of a Judge ofCourt of Small Causes. In my opinion thiscontention is not valid. In Mt. Sukha v.Raghunath (AIR 1917 All. 62); D. D. Vidyarthiv. Ram Pearey Lal (AIR 1935 All 690); BadalChandra v. Srikrishna Dey (AIR 1929 Cal 354);Bhagwan Das v. Keshwar Lal (AIR 1923 Pat 49)and Narayan Sitaram v. Bhagu [(1907) ILR 31Bom 314)] it has been laid down that theCourts on which Small Cause Court's powers areconferred shall also be deemed to be Courts ofSmall Causes. Section 4 of the ProvincialSmall Cause Courts Act lays down as under:"In this Act, unless there issomething repugnant in the subjector context, "Court of Small Causes"means a Court of Small Causesconstituted under this Act. andincludes any person exercisingjurisdiction under this Act in anysuch Court."It is clear that the expression "Court ofSmall Causes" has to be interpreted in thecontext in which the said expression is used.In my view, the expression 'Court of SmallCauses' used at the end of subsection (4) ofSection 25 really means and refers to aDistrict Judge or Additional District Judge onwhom the jurisdiction of a Judge of SmallCauses has been conferred.”33. The Allahabad High Court has followed the abovejudgment in several cases subsequently.4234. Whether the Additional District Judge, in the factsof the present case, had jurisdiction to take cognizanceof small causes suits having valuation upto Rs. 1 lakhand could still have proceeded to decide the suit, whosevaluation was less than Rs. 1 lakh? We may also noticeprovision of Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure,which provides that suits shall be instituted in theCourt of the lowest grade competent to try it. Section15 of Code of Civil Procedure is as follows:“Every suit shall be instituted in the Courtof the lowest grade competent to try it.”35. The purpose of Section 15 is obvious that eventhough more than one court has jurisdiction to try thesuit, it should be instituted in the Court of lowestgrade. For example, a small cause case can be institutedin Court of Small Cause presided by Civil Judge havingvaluation of upto Rs. 1 lakh as on date and small causesuit having valuation of more than Rs. 1 lakh can beinstituted in the Court of District Judge or AdditionalDistrict Judge. As per Section 15 of the Code of CivilProcedure, suit of less than Rs. 1 lakh valuation has to43be instituted in Small Causes Court presided by CivilJudge. Although, District Judge or Additional DistrictJudge has unlimited pecuniary jurisdiction but under thelegislative Scheme, the suit is not to be takencognizance by the District Judge or Additional DistrictJudge, which has valuation upto Rs. 1 lakh. Even thoughif Section 15 of the C.P.C. is a provision, whichregulate the institution of suits and does not affectthe jurisdiction of Courts, reading the provision ofSection 15 alongwith relevant provisions of theProvincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 and the Bengal,Agra, Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887, the legislativeScheme is clear that small cause cases should be takencognizance by Small Cause Courts presided by Civil Judgeupto the valuation of Rs. 1 lakh and cases havingvaluation of more than Rs. 1 lakh by District Judge orAdditional District Judge, who have been invested withthe power of Small Cause Courts. Unless the abovelegislative intent and Scheme is followed, there shallbe confusion and inconsistency. The legislativeprovisions have to be interpreted in a manner, which may44advance the object and purpose of the Act. When cleardichotomy regarding taking cognizance of small causessuits presided by Civil Judge and by District Judge orAdditional District Judge have been provided for, thesaid dichotomy and separation to take cognizance ofcases has to be followed to further the object andpurpose of legislation.36. In Pankaj Hotel case (supra), the Court took theview that since the Court of District Judge orAdditional District Judge, which have been invested withthe power of small causes Court had unlimited pecuniaryjurisdiction, they can validly adjudicate small causessuits having valuation of less than Rs. 1 lakh evenafter amendment by Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment)Act, 2015, we do not approve the above view. When theCourt of District Judge or Additional District Judgecould no longer take cognizance of small cause suits ofhaving less than Rs. 1 lakh valuation, it was no longerin the competence of Small Cause Court presided byDistrict Judge or Additional District Judge to proceed45to decide the suit of having valuation of less than Rs.1 lakh. Proper course was to transfer the cases beforea competent court to decide the suits. It is adifferent matter that the Court of District Judge orAdditional District Judge when proceeded to decide thesmall cause suits after 07.12.2015 of valuation of lessthan Rs. 1 lakh and neither any objection was raised byeither of the parties nor attention of the Court wasdrawn towards the amendment, Section 21 of the C.P.C. isthere to deal with such eventuality, which provision weshall hereinafter deal separately.37. Learned Single Judge in Pankaj Hotels' Case(Supra)has referred to and relied on various judgments of thisCourt which shall be referred to hereinafter.38. Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause CourtsAct, 1887 bears the title “Cognizance of Suits by Courtsof Small Causes”. Subsection(1) of Section 15 providesthat a Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizanceof the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suit46excepted from the cognizance of Court of Small Causes.Subsection(2)(as applicable in Uttar Pradesh) providesthat all suits of the civil nature of which the valuedoes not exceed Rs.5,000/shallbe cognizable by Courtof Small Causes. As per the proviso to subsection(2)in relation to suits by lessor for the eviction oflessee from building after determination of lease, thereference of Rs.5,000/shallbe construed as areference to Rs.25,000/.The keyword in the provisionis “shall be cognizable by Court of Small Causes.” Whatis the meaning of the phrase ‘Cognizable by Court ofSmall Causes’?39. The word ‘Cognizance’ has been defined in Black’sLaw Dictionary in following manner: “Cognizance(1) A court’s right and power to try and todetermine cases; Jurisdiction,(2) The taking of judicial orauthoritative notice.4740. Advanced Law Lexicon by P.Ramanatha Aiyar defines‘Cognizance’ in the following manner: “Cognizance.Judicialnotice or knowledge;the judicial recognition or hearing of acause; jurisdiction, or right to try anddetermine causes. It is a word of the largestimport:embracing all power, authority andjurisdiction. The word “cognizance” is usedin the sense of “right to take notice of anddetermine a cause.” Taking cognizance doesnot involve any formal action, or indeedaction of any kind, but occurs as soon as aMagistrate, as such, applies his mind of thesuspected commission of an offence…..”41. This Court in (2004) 2 SCC 349, State of HimachalPradesh vs. M.P.Gupta, had occasion to consider theexpression ‘Cognizance’. The definition of word‘Cognizance’ as given in Black’s Law Dictionary wasquoted with approval. In paragraph 10 of the judgment,following was stated: “10……According to Black’s Law Dictionary theword “cognizance” means “jurisdiction” or“the exercise of jurisdiction” or “power totry and determine causes”. In commonparlance, it means taking notice of. A court,therefore, is precluded from entertaining acomplaint or taking notice of it orexercising jurisdiction if it is in respectof a public servant who is accused of an48offence alleged to have been committed duringdischarge of his official duty.42. The statutory provisions of Section 15(2) ofProvincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 uses theexpression “shall be cognizable by the Court of SmallCauses”. The word ‘Cognizable’ is a word of wide import.It takes into its fold institution, hearing and decisionof a case cognizable by it. In Pankaj Hotels Case,learned Single Judge of the High Court had noted thestatement of objects of U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act,2015 and has given emphasis on word “for institution”and concluded that amendment is prospective in natureand is applicable only to suits and appeals beinginstituted after the amendment. When the plain word inthe statute i.e. Section 15(2) uses the word“cognizable” whether “statements of objects and reasons”which uses the word “institution” shall whittle down,the word ‘cognizable’ as used in Section 15(2). Thestatement of objects and reasons of U.P. Civil Laws(Amendment) Act, 2015, are to the following effect: 49“STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONSWHEREAS the value of the subject mattersbrought to the courts has increasedsubstantially, the pecuniary jurisdiction ofthe Civil Courts as well as those of SmallCause Courts in the State of Uttar Pradeshrequires to be raised for institution ofCivil Suits and appeals. It has, therefore,become necessary to amend the Bengal, Agraand Assam Civil Courts Act, 1887 andProvincial Small Cause courts Act, 1887 toincrease the pecuniary jurisdiction of CivilCourts and those of small Cause Courts in theState of Uttar Pradesh for securing betteradministration of Justice.The Uttar Pradesh Civil Laws (Amendment)Bill, 2015 is introduced accordingly.”43. It is true that statement of objects noticed thatvalue of subject matters brought to the courts hasincreased substantially, hence, pecuniary jurisdictionof the Civil Courts as well those of Small Causes Courtsin State of Uttar Pradesh requires to be raised for theinstitution of civil suits and appeals. The amendmenthas raised pecuniary limits in Provincial Small CauseCourts Act, 1887. The statement of objects and reasonsexplains the reason for increase of pecuniaryjurisdiction but use of word ‘for institution’ in50statement of object cannot control the express languageof the statutory provisions.44. A threeJudgeBench of this Court in S.S. Bola v.B.D. Sardana , (1997) 8 SCC 522, has held that statementof objects and reasons of the statute can be looked intoonly as extrinsic aid to find out the legislative intentonly when the meaning of statute by its ordinarylanguage is obscure and ambiguous. In paragraph 176,following was laid down: “176…..But it is a cardinal rule ofinterpretation that the Statement of Objectsand Reasons of a statute is to be looked intoas an extrinsic aid to find out thelegislative intent only when the meaning ofthe statute by its ordinary language isobscure or ambiguous. But if the words usedin a statute are clear and unambiguous thenthe statute itself declares the intention ofthe legislature and in such a case it wouldnot be permissible for a court to interpretthe statute by examining the Statement ofObjects and Reasons for the statute inquestion.”45. In Subha Ram vs. state of maharashtra, (2003) 1 SCC506, this court again laid down that statement ofobjects and reasons can be looked into for limitedpurpose of ascertaining condition prevailing at the time51which prompted or actuated the proposal of bill tointroduce the same and the extent of existing evil ofthe society. Further, in Bhaiji vs. SubDivisionalOfficer, (2003) 1 SCC 692, this court again reiteratedthe following principles of statutory interpretation inparagraph 11:“11. Reference to the Statement of Objectsand Reasons is permissible for understandingthe background, the antecedent state ofaffairs, the surrounding circumstances inrelation to the statute, and the evil whichthe statute sought to remedy. The weight ofjudicial authority leans in favour of theview that the Statement of Objects andReasons cannot be utilized for the purpose ofrestricting and controlling the plain meaningof the language employed by the legislaturein drafting a statute and excluding from itsoperation such transactions which it plainlycovers. (See Principles of StatutoryInterpretation by Justice G.P. Singh, 8thEdn., 2001, pp. 20609.)”46. The statement of object of U.P. Civil Laws(Amendment) Act, 2015 thus explains the reason forbringing the amendment for increasing the pecuniaryjurisdiction but the word ‘institution’ used instatement of object shall not control the expressedlanguage of Section 15. The expression ‘cognizance’ used52in Section 15 shall mean and include institution hearingand decision of the case. When statute provides thatcognizance of particular cause is to be taken by aparticular court, no other court can take cognizance ofthe cause, since legislature never creates or providesfor parallel jurisdiction in two different courts fortaking cognizance of a cause. When Section 15 providesthat all suits of civil nature of which the value doesnot exceed Rs.25,000/“shall be cognizable by theCourts of Small Causes”, the cognizance shall be takenby that very Court and no other Court.47. As noted above, the proviso to subsection(2)provides that figure Rs.5,000/shallbe construed toRs.25,000/.By U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015,the figure of Rs.25,000/stoodsubstituted by Rs.1 lac.Reading subsection(2) read with proviso and U.P. CivilLaws (Amendment Act), 2015 clearly means that SmallCause suits with valuation not exceeding Rs.1 lac shallbe cognizable by Court of Small Causes. When a SmallCause suit not exceeding value of Rs.1 lac is cognizable53by Court of Small Causes, obviously, no other court cantake cognizance. Additional District Judge to whom smallcauses suit in question was transferred since itsvaluation was more than of Rs.25,000/wasnot competentto take cognizance of the suit after U.P. Civil Laws(Amendment Act), 2015 w.e.f.07.12.2015, when the suit inquestion became cognizable by Small Causes Court i.e.Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division. To the aboveextent, the judgment of learned Single Judge in ShobhitNigam’s Case has to be approved and judgment of SingleJudge in Pankaj Hotels (Supra) laying down that evenafter 07.12.2015, the Additional District Judge hadjurisdiction to decide the suit in question cannot beapproved.48. We further observe that learned Single Judge inPankaj Hotels case having noticed an earlier view oflearned Single Judge in Shobhit Nigam’s case, and hebeing of the opinion that judgment does not lay down thecorrect law, appropriate course open for Single Judgewas to refer the matter for consideration by a larger54bench. The judgments of the High Court are relied on andfollowed by all subordinatecourts in the State. It isalways better to achieve certainty by an authoritativeopinion by the High Court instead of giving conflictingviews by different learned Single Judges which mayconfuse the litigants, lawyers and subordinatecourtsin applying the law.ISSUE NO.349. It is the submission of learned counsel for theappellant that even if the Additional District Judge wasnot competent to decide the small causes suit on22.10.2016, the judgment of the Additional DistrictJudge was not liable to be interfered with by therevisional court in view of Section 21 of the Code ofCivil Procedure. Section 21 of the Code of CivilProcedure relates to objection to jurisdiction. Section21 of the Code of Civil Procedure is as follows:“21. Objections to jurisdiction. — [(1)] Noobjection as to the place of suing shall beallowed by any Appellate or Revisional Courtunless such objection was taken in the Court55of first instance at the earliest possibleopportunity and in all cases where issues aresettled at or before such settlement, andunless there has been a consequent failure ofjustice.[(2) No objection as to the competence of aCourt with reference to the pecuniary limitsof its jurisdiction shall be allowed by anyAppellate or Revisional Court unless suchobjection was taken in the Court of firstinstance at the earliest possibleopportunity, and, in all cases where issuesare settled, at or before such settlement,and unless there has been a consequentfailure of justice.(3) No objection as to the competence of theexecuting Court with reference to the locallimits of its jurisdiction shall be allowedby any Appellate or Revisional Court unlesssuch objection was taken in the executingCourt at the earliest possible opportunity,and unless there has been a consequentfailure of justice.]”50. The policy underlying Section 21 of Code of CivilProcedure is that when the case has been tried by acourt on merits and the judgment rendered, it should notbe liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds,unless it has resulted in failure of justice. Theprovisions akin to Section 21 are also contained inSection 11 of the Suit Valuation Act, 1887 and Section99 of Code of Civil Procedure. This Court had occasion56to consider the principle behind Section 21, Code ofCivil Procedure and Section 11 of the Suit ValuationAct, 1887 in AIR 1954 SC 340, Kiran Singh v. ChamanPaswan. In paragraph 7 of the judgment following waslaid down: “7……The policy underlying Sections 21 and 99of the Civil Procedure Code and Section 11 ofthe Suits Valuation Act is the same, namely,that when a case had been tried by a court onthe merits and judgment rendered, it shouldnot be liable to be reversed purely ontechnical grounds, unless it had resulted infailure of justice, and the policy of thelegislature has been to treat objections tojurisdiction both territorial and pecuniaryas technical and not open to consideration byan appellate court, unless there has been aprejudice on the merits. The contention ofthe appellants, therefore, that the decreeand judgment of the District Court, Monghyr,should be treated as a nullity cannot besustained under Section 11 of the SuitsValuation Act.”51. One more submission which was raised in the saidappeal was considered by this Court. One of thesubmission of the appellant who had instituted the suitin the subordinate court was that as per the revisedvaluation, the appeal against the decree of subordinatejudge did not lay before the District Court but to the57High Court, hence, the judgment of the District Judge inappeal should be ignored. The appeal in the High Courtbe treated as first appeal. It was contended thatappellant has been prejudiced in the above manner.Rejecting the above submissions, this court laid downfollowing in paragraphs 11 and 12:“11.………This argument proceeds on amisconception. The right of appeal is no doubta substantive right, and its deprivation is aserious prejudice; but the appellants have notbeen deprived of the right of appeal againstthe judgment of the Subordinate Court. The lawdoes provide an appeal against that judgmentto the District Court, and the plaintiffs haveexercised that right. Indeed, theundervaluation has enlarged the appellants’right of appeal, because while they would havehad only a right of one appeal and that to theHigh Court if the suit had been correctlyvalued, by reason of the undervaluation theyobtained right to two appeals, one to theDistrict Court and another to the High Court.The complaint of the appellants really is notthat they had been deprived of a right ofappeal against the judgment of the SubordinateCourt, which they have not been, but that anappeal on the facts against that judgment washeard by the District Court and not by theHigh Court. This objection therefore amountsto this that a change in the forum of appealis by itself a matter of prejudice for thepurpose of Section 11 of the Suits ValuationAct.12. The question, therefore, is, can a decreepassed on appeal by a court which had58jurisdiction to entertain it only by reason ofundervaluation, be set aside on the groundthat on a true valuation that court was notcompetent to entertain the appeal? Three HighCourts have considered the matter in FullBenches, and have come to the conclusion thatmere change of forum is not a prejudice withinthe meaning of Section 11 of the SuitsValuation Act. Vide Kelu Achan v. CheriyaParvathi Nethiar Mool Chand v. Ram Kishan andRamdeo Singh v. Raj Narain. In our judgment,the opinion expressed in these decisions iscorrect………”52. The above principle has been reiterated by thisCourt in AIR (1962) SC 199, Hiralal vs. Kalinath and AIR1963 SC 634, Bahrain Petroleum Co. vs. P.J.Pappu andAnother.53. This court in (1993) 2 SCC 130, R.S.D.V. FinanceCompany Private Limited vs. Shree Vallabh Glass WorksLtd. had again considered Section 21 of the Code ofCivil Procedure. In paragraphs 7 and 8, following hasbeen laid down: “7………It may be further noted that the learnedSingle Judge trying the suit had recorded afinding that the Bombay Court hadjurisdiction to entertain and decide thesuit. Subsection(1) of Section 21 of theCode of Civil Procedure provides that noobjection as to the place of suing shall be59allowed by any appellate or revisional courtunless such objection was taken in the courtof first instance at the earliest possibleopportunity and in all cases where issues aresettled at or before such settlement andunless there has been consequent failure ofjustice. The above provision clearly laysdown that such objection as to the place ofsuing shall be allowed by the appellate orrevisional court subject to the followingconditions:(i) That such objection was taken in thecourt of first instance at the earliestpossible opportunity;(ii) in all cases where issues aresettled then at or before such settlementof issues;(iii) there has been a consequent failureof justice.8. In the present case though the first twoconditions are satisfied but the thirdcondition of failure of justice is notfulfilled. As already mentioned above therewas no dispute regarding the merits of theclaim. The defendant has admitted the depositof Rs 10,00,000 by the plaintiff, as well asthe issuing of the five cheques. We are thusclearly of the view that there is no failureof justice to the defendant by decreeing ofthe suit by the learned Single Judge of theBombay High Court, on the contrary it wouldbe totally unjust and failure of justice tothe plaintiff in case such objection relatingto jurisdiction is to be maintained asallowed by the Division Bench of the HighCourt in its appellate jurisdiction.”6054. In (2005) 7 SCC 791, Harshad Chiman Lal Modi vs.DLF Universal Ltd., this court had again consideredSection 21 and other provisions of Code of CivilProcedure. In paragraph 30, following has been laiddown: “30…………The jurisdiction of a court may beclassified into several categories. Theimportant categories are (i) territorial orlocal jurisdiction; (ii) pecuniaryjurisdiction; and (iii) jurisdiction over thesubjectmatter.So far as territorial andpecuniary jurisdictions are concerned,objection to such jurisdiction has to betaken at the earliest possible opportunityand in any case at or before settlement ofissues. The law is well settled on the pointthat if such objection is not taken at theearliest, it cannot be allowed to be taken ata subsequent stage. Jurisdiction as tosubjectmatter,however, is totally distinctand stands on a different footing. Where acourt has no jurisdiction over the subjectmatterof the suit by reason of anylimitation imposed by statute, charter orcommission, it cannot take up the cause ormatter. An order passed by a court having nojurisdiction is a nullity.”55. Again in (2007) 13 SCC 650, Subhash MahadevasaHabib v. Nemasa Ambasa Dharmadas, this court held thatthere is distinction between lack of inherentjurisdiction and objection to territorial and pecuniary61jurisdiction. This court noticed the amendments made inSection 21 in the year 1976. Following was stated inparagraph 34, 37 and 41:“34. It may be noted that Section 21 providedthat no objection as to place of the suingcan be allowed by even an appellate orrevisional court unless such objection wastaken in the court of first instance at theearliest possible opportunity and unlessthere has been a consequent failure ofjustice. In 1976, the existing section wasnumbered as subsection(1) and subsection(2) was added relating to pecuniaryjurisdiction by providing that no objectionas to competence of a court with reference tothe pecuniary limits of its jurisdictionshall be allowed by any appellate orrevisional court unless such objection hadbeen taken in the first instance at theearliest possible opportunity and unlessthere had been a consequent failure ofjustice………37. As can be seen, Amendment Act 104 of 1976introduced subsection(2) relating topecuniary jurisdiction and put it on a parwith the objection to territorialjurisdiction and the competence to raise anobjection in that regard even in an appealfrom the very decree. This was obviously donein the light of the interpretation placed onSection 21 of the Code as it existed andSection 11 of the Suits Valuation Act by thisCourt in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan5followed by Hiralal Patni v. Kali Nath6 andBahrein Petroleum Co. Ltd. v. P.J. Pappu4.Therefore, there is no justification inunderstanding the expression “objection as toplace of suing” occurring in Section 21Aas62being confined to an objection only in theterritorial sense and not in the pecuniarysense. Both could be understood, especiallyin the context of the amendment to Section 21brought about by the Amendment Act, asobjection to place of suing.41. In the light of the above, it is clearthat no objection to the pecuniaryjurisdiction of the court which tried OS No.61 of 1971 could be raised successfully evenin an appeal against that very decree unlessit had been raised at the earliestopportunity and a failure of justice orprejudice was shown. Obviously therefore, itcould not be collaterally challenged. Thattoo not by the plaintiffs therein, but by adefendant whose alienation was unsuccessfullychallenged by the plaintiffs in that suit.”56. Now, reverting back to facts of this case it isapparent from the judgment dated 22.10.2016 ofAdditional District Judge, that no objection to thecompetence of Additional District Judge to decide thecase was taken by any of the parties. No objectionhaving been taken to the pecuniary jurisdiction of theAdditional District Judge, Section 21 of the CivilProcedure Code comes into play. Subsection(2) ofSection 21 provides that no objection as to thecompetence of the Court with reference to the pecuniarylimits of the jurisdiction shall be allowed by anyAppellate or Revisional Court unless conditionsmentioned therein are fulfilled. No objection havingbeen raised by respondent tenant regarding competence ofthe Court.Subsection(2) precludes the revisionist toraise any objection regarding competence of the courtand further revisional court ought not to have allowedsuch objection regarding competence of Court ofAdditional District Judge to decide the suit. Therespondent tenant did not raise any objection regardingcompetence of the Court and took a chance to obtainjudgments in his favour on merits, he cannot be allowedto turnroundand contend that the court of AdditionalDistrict Judge had no jurisdiction to try the SmallCause Suit and the judgment is without jurisdiction andnullity. Section 21 has been enacted to thwart any suchobjection by unsuccessful party who did not raise anyobjection regarding competence of court and allowed thematter to be heard on merits. Further, in deciding thesmall cause suit by Additional District Judge, the

tenant has not proved that there has been a consequentfailure of justice.57. The High Court in the impugned judgment has notadverted to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure.In judgment of Shobhit Nigam(Supra) also, affect ofSection 21 was neither considered nor raised. Section 21contains a legislative policy which policy has an objectand purpose. The object is also to avoid retrial ofcases on merit on basis of technical objections.58. There is another judgment of Single Judge of theHigh Court referred to by the learned counsel for therespondent i.e. SCC Revision No.305 of 2016, Tejumal vs.Mohd. Sarfraz, 2017 (121) ALR 392. In the above case,learned Single Judge had allowed the revision underSection 25 against the judgment dated 12.08.2016 passedby Additional District and Sessions Judge on the groundthat the judgment of Additional District Judge waswithout jurisdiction. In paragraph 6 of the judgment,High Court had noticed judgment of this court in

R.S.D.V. Finance Company Private Limited vs. ShreeVallabh Glass Works Ltd. where it was held that in viewof Section 21(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure,objection as to the place of suing should be taken bythe party concerned in the court of first instance atthe earliest possible opportunity and the objection tothis effect shall not be allowed by the Appellate orRevisional Court but relying on the judgment of thisCourt in Kiran Singh Vs. Chaman Paswan, learned SingleJudge held that defect of jurisdiction whether pecuniaryor territorial or to the subject matter cannot be curedand can be set up at any stage of the proceeding.59. We are of the view that the above view of thelearned Single Judge is neither in consonance with thejudgment of this Court in Kiran Singh’s case nor withR.S.D.V. Finance Company Private Limited (supra) whichhas been noted and referred to by learned Single Judge.Section 21 is statutory recognition of the legislativepolicy which cannot be ignored or given a gobyby thelitigants who challenges an unfavourable decision.6660. We thus of the view that the view of the learnedSingle Judge in Tejumal Vs. Mohd. Sarfraj does not laydown the correct law and cannot be approved.61. In the foregoing discussion, we are of the viewthat High Court committed error in allowing the S.C.C.Revision filed by the respondent tenant without takinginto consideration Section 21 of the Civil ProcedureCode.62. We thus hold that even when the court of AdditionalDistrict Judge was not competent to decide the SmallCauses Suit in question on the ground that the pecuniaryjurisdiction is vested in Court of Small Causes i.e.Civil Judge, Senior Division w.e.f. 07.12.2015, nointerference was called in the judgment of AdditionalDistrict Judge in the exercise of RevisionalJurisdiction by High Court in view of the provisions ofSection 21 of Civil Procedure Code.

63. In result, the appeals are allowed. The judgment ofthe High Court dated 07.12.2016 is set aside. Partiesshall bear their own costs......................J.( A.K. SIKRI ).....................J.( ASHOK BHUSHAN )NEW DELHIOctober 12,2018.